means over. shannon: there are people across the united states who are now facing charges. thank you both for joining us. you've been here live for the acquittal. griff jenkins and gillian turner are going to pick it up here. gillian: the senate falling short of the votes neated to -- needed to convict the 45th president. seven republicans joined all fifty democrats in voting to convict trump. 67 votes were needed for a conviction. hello, everyone, welcome to a brand new hour of "america's news headquarters" here in washington, d.c., i'm gillian turner. griff: and i'm griff jenkins. the trail ending after both sides came to an agreement to skip witness testimony, senators initially voting to allow withinses after a statement from

washington state republican congresswoman jaime herrera buetler was revealed in it. she said house minority leader kevin mccarthy told her the former president had sided with the9 mob during a phone call as the capitol riot unfolded. let's go now to our congressional correspondent, chad pergram, who has been on this all day long. what a roller coaster, chad. >> reporter: absolutely. we thought we were going to have a quick verdict, and then they got caught up in this tangle or whether or not they were going to have witnesses, and by 12:30 they were back on track. the vote, 57-43 with 7 republican senators breaking with the rest of the party, voting to convict. probably the biggest surprise there is richard burr, the republican senator from north carolina. he is retiring next term. and also, you know, bill cassidy who, obviously, went into play earlier this week, the republican from louisiana. cassidy voted early in the week

to forge ahead, he voted saying at the trial was, in fact, tightal, and he -- constitutional and after the first day of arguments from the house impeachment managers that they made a better case. he was obviously in play. now, four times the senate has voted to determine the guilt or innocence of an american president in an impeachment trial, and four times the senate has voted that president was innocent of those charms. of course, you need a two-thirds vote to convict. now, we've just gotten a statement that's come in just before the top of the hour from the former president, and this is president trump saying that this has been another phase in the great. ericson: witch hunt -- great witch hunt in listsly. but again, the trial is over, we're going to expect to hear from the house impeachment managers in a news conference a little bit later this afternoon, we might hear from the president's defense counsel leaving the building. but, again, we've had two impeachment trials in 12 months. remarkable time here in washington. griff: chad, we have been

following, obviously, your coverage all day long, and i've been texting with you, you've been so helpful. but for our viewers, can you just explain the unprecedented moves that we saw in the trial today? >> reporter: you have a trial agreement, a framework that sets up how the trial is supposed to go, and once you finished the q&a portion last night where senators were submitting questions to both sides, then you had this opportunity for the senate to vote to have witnesses. it was generally thought that they wanted to get this trial wrapped up rather quickly. it kind of surprised people when jamie raskin, the lead are impeachment manager from maryland, came out and said we need to hear from jaime herrera buetler, the republican congresswoman from washington state. she was privy to kevin mccarthy who had this screaming match, phone call with the president on january 6th, saying can you get these guys to call it off here. and congressman raskin said

let's put that into the record on zoom, let's have her deposed, and this is where you had mike vanderveen saying if they're going to have one witness, i need to hear from vice president harris, i need to hear from house speaker nancy pelosi, and you could see how this would devolve off the tracks very quickly are. you could spend a month or nor, the impeachment trial of andrew johnson stretchedded on for three months back in 1868. what they were able to do very quickly after they opened up that door, this was what we call a gateway vote here on capitol hill, where they say said we want to have witnesses, but we worked out an agreement to say, all right, we're not going to depose jaime herrera buetler, what we're going to do is accept her statement into the record, and that got everybody back on course, and they concluded these arguments today. it was rather dramatic where we thought this might, you know, take up another month or two on capitol hill, and that's particularly of note because they're trying to finish the next coronavirus bill. that is next in the queue

legislatively here on capitol hill. gillian: chad, it's gillian. going to ask you to protect the future for us since you're doing everything today. wanted to ask you about looking forward, you know, president trump is now cleared for the second time, but in a sense the entire senate is cleared to go about their business now. what's going to be the immediate legislative the priority aside from the coronavirus relief legislation that president biden is pushing? is it going to be confirming the rest of the nominees? what do you see as the next big ticket item? >> reporter: they certainly have to deal with the rest of the cabinet here. you had roger marshall, the freshman republican senator from kansas, on our area this morning saying, look, we need to confirm the agriculture secretary. obviously, that's very important to kansas. and this was the question, this was why some democrats questioned whether it was appropriate to go down this impeachment road. chuck schumer repeatedly said, yes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know, confirm nominees in the morning and do

this other business with the trial in the afternoon. it's one thing to take up five days doing on that on a week that the senate was not even scheduled to be in, it's another thing to chew up months and months and months, and probably what would have happened is the trial would have gone dark for a while because they would have had to have done these depositions and taken statements after stage. but the next big thing is going to be the coronavirus bill legislatively. you're going to hear a lot of chatter about if they can get the $15 minimum wage into this bill. there's some parliamentary tests that they have to go through to see whether or not it's apropos to get through in the senate. that remains to be seen. and, of course, you have to have the votes to pass this bill. we don't know if they have the votes because you have people like krysten sinema, a moderate democrat from arizona, and even joe manchin. so that is what's going to consume the traffic here on capitol hill for about the next three weeks to a month.

house speaker nancy pelosi said i she would like to papp pass it by the edge of february, richard neal said maybe the second or third week of march, and that's generally what i've been told here on capitol hill. but you know what, gillian? if it's in the shop, it has a bad fuse and they can they can't get the part in. sorry. gillian: something that john roberts talked about earlier today, had this trial gone on for weeks and weeks or months and months, it's still up likely that would have changed any votes at the edge of all of this. >> reporter: right. and that's why for a couple hours this morning we wondered was there something else that might come out from a further, deeper inquisition into what was the president's disposition on 1/6, what were the detail of the phone call with kevin mccarthy, what was he actually doing, was there concern about vice president pence and the security of the nuclear football which has the nuclear codes that travels with the vice president that was with him when he was here to preside along with the

house speaker over the certification of the electoral college on january 6th. those were questions that people wanted to get to the bottom of here. gillian: chad, don't head to the shop to pick up the crystal ball just yet, we need you to stand by for a little more time. thanks so much. give give you're looking louvre now on the floor of the senate. the minority leader, mitch mcconnell, delivering remarks. let's listen. >> -- by the most powerful man on earth. he was angry he lost an election. former president trump's actions preceded the riot preceding the riot were a disgracefuller dereliction of duty. the house accused the former president of, quote, incitement. s that is a specific term from the criminal law. let me just put that aside for a moment and reiterate something i

said weeks ago. there's no question, none, that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. no question about it. the people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the doe feeted president -- defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth. the issue is not only the president's intemperate language

on january 6th, it is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged, quote, trial by combat. it was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe, the increasingly wild myths, myths about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen, some secret coup by our now-president. now, i defended the president's right to bring any complaints to our legal system. the legal system spoke. the electoral college spoke. as i stood up and said cleary at that time -- clearly add that

time, the election was settled. it was over. and that just really opened a new chapter of even wilder, wilder and more unfounded claims. the leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that is shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors. we saw that. that the unhinged listeners might take literally. but that was different. that's different from what we saw. this was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories orchestrate thed by outgoing --

by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out. the up conscionable behavior -- unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence actually began. whatever our ex-president claims he thought might happen that day, whatever reaction he says he meant to produce by that afternoon, we know he was watching the same live television as the rest of us. a mob was assaulting the capitol in his name. these criminals carried his

banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him. it was obvious. only president trump could end this. he was the only one who could. former aides publicly begged him to do so. loyal allies frantically called the administration. the president did not act swiftly, he did not do his job, he didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored. no. instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily, happily, as the chaos

unfolded. pressing his scheme to overturn the election. now, even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that vice president pence was in serious danger, even as the mob carrying trump banners, beating cops and breaching perimeters, the president sent a further tweet attacking his own vice president. now predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as a further inspiration to lawlessness and violence, not

surprisingly. later, even when the president did half heartedly begin calling for peace, he didn't call right away for the riot to end, he did not tell the mob to depart until even later. and even then with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals. in recent weeks our ex-president's associates have tried to use the 74 million americans who voted to reelect him as a kind of human shield against criticism. using the 74 million for him as

a kind of human shield against create -- against criticism. anyone who decries his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. that's an absurd deflection. 74 million americans did not invade the capitol. hundreds of rioters did. 74 million americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. one person did. just one. now, i've made my view of this episode very plain, but our system of government gave the senate a specific task, the

constitution gives us a particular role. this body is not invited to act as the nation's overarching moral tribunal. we're not free to work backward from whether the accused party might personally deserve some kind of punishment. our nation's first great constitutional scholar, as he explained nearly 200 years ago, the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool, a narrow tool for a narrow purpose. the story explained this limited tool exists to, quote, secure the state against gross official misdemeanors, end quote.

that is, to protect the country from government officers. if president trump were still in office, i would have carefully considered whether the house managers proved their specific charge. by the strict criminal standard, the president's speech probably was not incitement. however, however, in the context of impeachment the senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riot. finish but in this case the question is moot because former president trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction.

now, this is a close question, no doubt. donald trump was the president when the house voted, though not when the house chose to deliver the papers. brilliant scholars argue both sides of this jurisdictional question. the text is legitimately ambiguous. i respect my colleagues who have reached either conclusion. but after intense reflection, i believe the best constitutional reading shows that article ii, section four exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached, tried or convicted. it's the president, it's the

vice president and civil officers. we have no power to convict and disqualify a former office holder who is now a private citizen. here is article ii, section four. quote: the president, the vice president and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, end quote. now, everyone basically agrees that the second half of that sentence exhausts the legitimate grounds for conviction. the debate's around the constitution's -- the debates around the constitution's framing make that abundantly

clear. congress cannot convict for reasons besides those. it, therefore, follows that the list of persons in that same sentence is also exhausted. there's no reason why one would list, one list would be exhausted but the other would not. article ii, section four must limit both why impeachment and conviction can occur and to whom. and to whom. if this provision does not limit impeachment and conviction powers, then it has no limits at all. the house has sole power of impeachment, and the senate's sole power to try all impeachments would create an unlimited circular logic and power in congress to ban any

private citizen from federal office. now, that's an incredible claim. but it's the argument the house managers seemed to be making. one manager said the house and senate the had, quote, absolute, unqualified jurisdictional power, end quote. well, that was very honest because there is no limiting principle in the constitutional text that would empower the senate to convict former officers that would not also let them convict and disqualify any private citizen. an absurd end result to which no one subscribes. article ii, section four must have force. it tells us the president, the vice president and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. donald trump's no longer the president. likewise, the provision states that officers subject to

impeachment and provision shall be removed from office if convicted. shall be removed from office if convicted. as justice story explained, the senate upon conviction is bound in all cases to enter a judgment of removal from office. removal is mandatory upon conviction. clearly, he explained, that mandatory sentence cannot be applied to someone who's left office. the entire process revolves around removal. if removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible.

in one light it certainly does seem -- that an office holder can elude conviction by expiration of term. an argument we heard made by the managers. but this underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for american justice. never meant to be the final forum for american justice. impeachment, conviction and removal. are a specific intragovernmental safety valve. it is not the criminal justice system where individual accountability is the paramount goal. indeed, justice story specifically reminded that while

former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were -- and this is extremely important -- still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice. put another way, in the language of today, president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. as an ordinary citizen. unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while he was in office. didn't get away with anything yet. yet. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation. and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. i believe the senate was not --

was right not to grab power the constitution doesn't give us. and the senate was right not to entertain some light-speed sham process to try to outrun the loss of jurisdiction. it took both sides more than a week just to produce their pretrial briefs. speaker pelosi's own scheduling decisions conceded what president biden publicly confirmed, a senate verdict before inauguration day was never possible. now, mr. president, this has been a dispiriting time, but the senate has done our duty. the framers' firewall hall end again. -- firewall held up again. on january 6th we returned to our posts and certified the

election. we were uncowed. we were not intimidated. we finished the job. and since then we resisted the clamor to defy our own constitutional guardrails in hot pursuit of a particular outcome. we refused to continue a cycle of recklessness by straining our own constitutional boundaries in response. the senate's decision today does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day. it simply shows that senators did what the former president failed to do.

we put our constitutional duty first. >> mr. president. >> the senator from maryland. >> if you're joining us, you've been watching the senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell, delivering remarks on the floor of the senate after the senate votes to acquit donald j. trump of incitement of insurrection. gillian? gillian: president trump is releasing a statement just now on the senate's acquittal. it reads in part, quote: this has been another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country. no president has ever gone through anything like it, and it continues because our opponents cannot forget the almost 75 million people, the highest number ever for a sitting president, who voted for us just a few short months ago. all right. to talk about this, let's bring in brad blakeman, former deputy assistant to president george w. bush and a bush/cheney campaign

adviser. blake, thanks so much for joining us right now. this was not -- i think i can speak for most of us when i say this was not the speech we were expecting from senator mcconnell immediately on the heels of president trump's acquittal. i mean, he really went after after him in these remarks. >> he did. but he made a cogent argument as to why this proceeding was unconstitutional. it was a procedural argument. yet he laid out the culpability of the president in the rioting that occurred that day, and it was the perfect blend of reality versus the fiction that we've just been through with democrats. this is an unconstitutional act. just because a bunch of senators get together and say it's constitutional doesn't make it so. we had an arbiter of the constitution, and that is the supreme court. and today never ruled as to the procedural aspect of this trial. senator mcconnell was right. when the indictment came in from the house, the article of impeachment, we had a sitting

president. that was donald j. trump. but when we had the trial the, he was not. he's an ordinary citizen. and leader mcconnell, quite frankly, was correct in interpretation of article ii, section four of the constitution that we cannot proceed against a trial for a person who's no longer the president. there's nothing to be removed. he's gone. and that's what democrats could never get over, the fact that they needed to get even with donald trump. they needed to enact revenge against donald trump. and who won today? the constitution. that's what won today. this nightmare is over for the american people. it's time to get beyond this, if democrats can manage to do it. we've wasted three weeks of a new presidency bogged down, and meanwhile the pandemic continues, we have americans out of work. this is the work that should be done now, and i'm hoping the democrats can just let donald trump go and get on with the

business at hand. griff: so, brad, let me ask you, because you mentioned the article ii, section four, and that is what mitch mcconnell cited as the reason why he voted to acquit after, as gillian pointed out, mcconnell spent a lot of time really going after donald trump saying that the riot unfolded and the chaos ensued, that it was trump and trump alone the only one who could stop it. and then at one point mcconnell mentioned that there's nothing to suggest that the criminal justice system can't prosecute a former president. so essentially saying that we in this esteemed body under the strict constitutional reading of that section could not find a conviction, but maybe the president would be prosecuted later. >> that remains to be seen. but, certainly, leader mcconnell was correct in the fact that the forum was inappropriate. to have a senate trial on

articles of impeachment that are invalid on its face. you can't have a trial if procedurally the articles of impeachment are moot because the former president is just that, a former president, an ordinary citizen. and mitch mcconnell, you know, he took the gloves a off just like he did prior to the trial when he went to the floor and said donald trump has culpability in the riot. but the remedy is not an impeachment trial. there may be some other remedy outside the senate. and that may occur, it may not occur. remains to be seen. gillian: so president trump has now officially been acquitted, this is over. what we're looking at on the senate floor is sort of wrap-up, concluding remarks, and we're going to get a press conference in a little while from the defense team. so we have to hear what they think about all this. but, brad, in the interim, he's been acquitted like i just said, however, he also had the most

votes for impeachment against a sitting president since, you know, president andrew johnson. so it's not entirely clear here that he's vindicated according to -- in the democrats' words, according to democrats we're talking to. what do you make of that this. >> democrats will never be happy. the fact is, and you've heard it from the presiding officer of the senate, that donald j. trump is acquitted. it really doesn't matter, the amount of votes that the seven republicans that joined in that vote because they never achieved the supermajority needed of three-quarters of the senate to convict. gillian: well, brad, except i have to point out though in that statement i just read you from former president trump himself, he lost the general election, but he's till touting the fact that he -- still the touting the fact that he had the most votes for a sitting president's election in history. then those votes count, the votes today gotta count, right? make it fair. >> you can argue it six

different ways, but the bottom line is history will show donald trump was impeached by the house, and he wasn't convicted by the senate. you know, democrats will never be able to get beyond trump, and is hopefully by his acquittal, this'll be one step in that direction for the good of the country. there is no donald trump to kick around anymore. griff: well, brad, democrats could not get 17 republicans to cross the aisle. of that was the magic number they needed, 67 votes to convict, but 7 republicans did. five of them, collins, more cow city, sawse, toomey -- sasse, not a surprise, but two of them, richard burr and bill cat city, they were -- cassidy, they were a surprise. what does this mean going forward for the gop? >> well, the gop will get beyond the trump era, that is for sure. like every former president, the party needs to regroup, there'll be new leader emerging, and the party will continue.

the democrats are in more disarray, i would allege, than the republicans are because now they have the control of all three branches of government, and you've seen the deep acquisition divisions within the democrats on how they should proceed in government. i'd much rather be a republican today than a democrat. gillian: brad, we want to ask you to take a sort of look into the future for us here. does this vote leave republicans more citunited than they've been over the last few weeks or thiess since the beginning of november anyway? >> well, i think this is a good day for the country because the constitution prevailed. it's up to republicans now to regroup as a party. we have a big tent, and we have to get beyond the trump era just like we do when we get beyond former presidents who are the leaders of our party. there are going to be new leaders, and that's going to be our mission, to field great candidates, to stand up to democrats in their more progressive policies that we're going to now see and hopefully get focused on now that this is behind us. so that is the mission of

republicans, regroup. and that's exactly what we're going to do. gillian: we're going to regroup over here on this end. brad, thanks for sticking with us. we'll check back with you next hour. griff: let's bring in our legal panel, kimberly wehle, former assistant u.s. attorney and former associate independent counsel in the whitewater investigation, and sol wisenberg, former deputy independent counsel and fox news contributor. thank you for taking time. what a historic day. sol, i'd like to start with you, your reaction to what we just watched. >> well, i think i would like to focus on manager if you're talking about -- something if you're talking about senator mcconnell and his speech, what he just said. he talked about, as your previous guest pointed out, the possibility of criminal investigation. the house put on a pretty good, a pretty good show, the house managers, over the last few days. and one of the things i was thinking about when i was looking at it, is the federal crime of accessory after the

fact. what do you do if you are told about an ongoing crime and do something to help the people involved in it? now, we've got, apparently, several hundred people now who have been indicted for various aspects related to the assault on the capitol, and if this evidence holds up, obviously there has to be a real criminal investigation being conducted -- to be conducted by the acting u.s. attorney in d.c. but if it holds up, you can end up having, if you so chose, a decent accessory after the fact case against the former president. you would not have to worry about issues like is this inciteful speech or not under the brandenburg test. there's irrefutable proof that he knew this was going on, and he didn't do anything to stop it. i'm not saying that's true, i'm saying that is an example of something senator mcconnell is talking about, that it's just not over yet. gillian: kimberly, one of the

tactics that the defense really relied on throughout this trial was sort of spreading the blame around saying, essentially, well, if you're going to fault president trump and hold him responsible for saying let's fight, let's take the fight to the people, you know, then you've also got to hold democrats like maxine waters and cory booker and elizabeth warren, even kamala harris appeared in one of the videos. do you think that is what helped them get to the victory they got to this afternoon? >> you know, i don't. i think mitch mcconnell sort of tried to have it both ways. on the one hand, he made a technical argument admitting it was ambiguous under the law as to whether it was constitutional to hold the trial. of course, he was the reason the trial didn't start prior to the inauguration because he was in charge. but then at the same time said donald trump acted recklessly,

that he abdicated his constitutional responsibility. and as sol said, potentially a criminal defendant moving forward which is quite, quite serious. i think, you know, as a constitutional law professor, i think we all have to take a deep and look, stand back and look at the constitution itself. there's a big difference between a criminal trial and what we just saw what impeachment is which is really deciding we, the people. where's the line of conduct that we're okay with for any president? it's basically defining a job description for the presidency. and this definitely, in that regard, leaves us all open to something like this happening again so long as it's towards the end of a term whether it's a democrat or republican. and, of course, as we heard in the trial, we've seen rioting, you know, across the political spectrum. and i don't like that picture for america either way. it seems like that picture has been given the green light at least from the standpoint of the u.s. congress. they're punting it to other

parts of the executive branch; that is, the u.s. attorney or local district attorneys at the state and municipal level. griff: yeah. that's an interesting point, kimberly. sol, let me pick thereupon and ask you because we did see mcconnell siting article ii, section four of the constitution why he voted to acquit. but is it possible that had it not been incitement for insurrection and something more along the hines of dereliction of duty, they might have had a different outcome? >> no, i don't think until have. if i could respond to one point that kimberly made -- and we're old friends, that's why i can call her by her first name -- and that's i don't think, i think that's a bum rap of mcconnell delaying. because from what i understood at the time, first of all, they didn't send the article of impeachment over right away, but also my understanding was the senate was in recess at that point, and he would have needed

the unanimous consent of his republican senates. he couldn't even get anything close toen unanimous consent when he tried to get them to drop their objections to certification. so i'm not certain about that, but i think i recall reading that. it would have been awfully late to put on a trial and, an actual trial, before inauguration day. that's number one. but number two, also kind of in some opposition to what kimberly is saying, and that is, yes, you could look at it as a bad example that was sent with by acquitting president trump. but i think it's important to put on your case. i think the house managers put on a very powerful case against him. even if you believe technically that you cannot convict a president once he leaves office, that -- a lot of people watched that presentation. it was powerful. it's going to affect, i believe, president trump's reputation and his popularity even among some

people in his base. i think it's important, it was important that they go through with the process. gillian: all right. kimberly, i asked you a moment ago about the defense's legal strategy, now i want to flip sides and ask you about house managers. one of the things they did throughout the course of this trial was really broaden the scope of their argument. so they started small and tight, they were focusing on incitement of violence on january 6th, we're looking at this singular incident. but then over the course of this week what they did was expand the scope. they kept going backwards. they started with president trump's refusal to concealed the presidential election back in november, then the court cases that he filed in state after state after state over the coming weeks, then incitement to violence that they claim happened on january 6th. was that the right right thing to do for the democrats? >> well, i saw it a little differently in that i think the defense argument was under the first amendment that you take a snapshot of january 6th and the

words that came out. i think what the democrats were trying to do was say, listen, incitement requires a wider lens, that over a period of weeks that he called people to the capitol on january 6th, and we saw testimony from people in the crowd. we know that sol mentioned, you know, people that are indicted, indictments indicate belief from his followers that they were doing the patriotic thing to come to the u.s. capitol and serve the constitution in their minds because they were answering to their president. and i think the defense argument was -- and it's very clear in the briefs as well -- those people are on their own, we're leaving them twisting in the wind, they're criminals. they went off, you know, off script. trump had nothing to do with that. and it doesn't -- i think we can use our common sense that leadership does matter and that actually leaders do have to be held accountable maybe to even a higher standard than people that are following leaders.

so i agree with sol that i'm not so sure, you know, reframing the charge would have made any difference. i think they chose this charge to deflect the argument that it's not, per se, not a high crime and misdemeanor. no one argues that incitement of an insurrection doesn't qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor which we saw the last round. but i would have liked to have seen some witnesses, frankly. i mean, this wasn't a traditional trial, it wasn't a real trial. and i think americans deserve to see what, from firsthand accounts not only what it was like, the police officers. i mean, the police officers were also abandoned by the president in a very tender moment, and a number of them died. and those families will live with that. so kind of connecting on a personal level with the american people about the implications of this and maybe persuading some people that, you know what? maybe just having a slap on the wrist that amounts to can't run again for office is worthwhile

and justifiable as americans. that's holding hands as americans. but the democrats decided, listen, it's more important to move on with the biden agenda, i'm assuming, than really to thoroughly investigate and prosecute the case. gillian: interesting. we've got to leave it there for you. we're going to come back to you later in the program. thanks so much. >> sure thing. gillian: at the moment we're expecting to hear any moment from the house impeachment managers. they're set to hold a press conference. we're going to bring you live to that as it happens, but first we're going to bring back in congressional correspondent pilgrim. chad -- chad pergram. chad, what are you expecting to hear from house managers kind of putting a bow on the day? >> reporter: they're probably going to reiterate their case here. they're going to say, look, we established more than a majority of the senate and, of course, that's not the bar that's needed here. that's one thing that they will talk about. you might hear some questions from reporters, certainly, about, you know, this idea that

we didn't expect a request from witnesses, and then they went off into that kind of cul-de-sac and came back later. that's going to be probably the two or three main points of the press conference. let's just kind of do a reset here. the verdict is in, this was the fastest senate impeachment trial, five days, the vote 57-43. you need 67, as i say, two-thirds. that's according to article i, section three of the constitution, and no one ever really thought they would get to that two-thirds threshold. the gop whip, john thune, says the republican exceptions were what he expected. we had three surprisessed today, north carolina senator richard burr. he voted yes. we thought at a minimum there would be six republicans, but burr was a surprise. burr said, quote: the president promoted unfounded conspiracy theories to cast doubt on the election because he dud not like the results. and in just the past couple of moments here, we have gotten a rebuke of burr from the chair of the republican party who says

this is kind of surprising to them. the second surprise, the remarks of mitch mcconnell, the minority leader. he tore into the former president for stoking election conspiracy theories. mcconnell still voted to acquit, but mcconnell doesn't think that it's constitutional to conduct a trial for a former officialing. now, that has happened twice before in impeachment trials. in 1790 you had former tennessee senator william blount, he was tried in senate after he was ouf office, and secretary of war william bell knapp in 1876. i said we had a third surprise here, when we thought we may not get a final verdict today. the trial kind of spun off the rails for a couple of hours as the senate voted to consider witnesses. but the senate finally worked out an agreement to enter into the record a statement by gop washington representative jaime herrera buetler. herera butler spoke of what she learned ability a shouting match between president trump and house minority leader kevin

mccarthy during the melee in january. a separate investigation continues at the capitol into security failures and faulty intelligence, and we should get information about what the new security standards would be, at least the first report on that, sometime in early march. griff: chad, i want to ask you as we wait for the house managers' press conference to hear what they have to say, you mentioned minority leader mcconnell's harsh remarks. and, of course, his acquittal vote. what does this mean now for the republican caucus? >> reporter: well, you know, mitch mcconnell, you know, has to serve a lot of masters there. first of all, his vote to acquit -- and he announced that about an hour before the trial got underway at 10:00 this morning -- you know, represents that he is with the majority of his conference, you know? i talked about liz cheney and the internal warfare going on in thous republican conference. she's the number three leader in the house republican conference, and that was a real concern there. and so mcconnell's trying to

have it ways, frankly. griff: all right. chad, thank you very much. gillian: joining us now we've got one of president trump's impeachment defense lawyers joining us live, martin van insiderder veen. michael, sorry. are you with us, sir? >> yes. gillian: first of all, congratulations on your victory. how are you feeling? >> thank you. feel good. gillian: what do you think -- when you look back on the events of the day, we saw a lot transpire certainly in the morning when the senate voted to call witnesses and then cast that aside and proceed with a vote, what sort of surprised you the most in. >> nothing really surprised me. what had happened was the day before we demolished their case, and they were like a dying animal that we had trapped in the corner. so this morning their last gasp

was swinging out at us trying to save their case, and it didn't work. so we were kind of expecting them to pull something. there was a stipulation the night before. they pulled it out from under the rug at about ten minutes before we walked into the senate chamber this morning. we're, you know, trial lawyers. we're used to taking anything that comes our way, and we shift, pivot, adjust and move forward, and that's exactly what we did. griff: michael, i want do you, we've read the statement from former president trump on our air, but have you talked to your client, and what was his initial reaction to be you? >> i don't discuss any attorney/client communications in any way. griff: well, would it be fair to say that the president is reacting positively to what he saw and what has transpired today? >> i would assume that that is what he's doing. e had a good day in court today. he was vindicated. he was found not guilty.

the political witch hunt that they had, at the democrats had thrown at him was defeated, so he should feel quite pleased. gillian: michael, one of the things that you and your colleagues referenced over and over again during the course of this week is that there were really four core reasons for senators to acquit president trump. when you look back on how things unfolded, which of those arguments do you think senators relied on the most? was it this idea of the unconstitutionality of the trial? was it falling back on the president's own first amendment rights? what do you think made the big difference? >> that's a really good question because it was very interesting. we had to go with all four grounds of acquittal because different senators had different interests. you know, for example, some senators due process was absolutely important to them. other senators just the fact that they were unable in any way

to put on a case and prove the merits of their case held the day. i do think there were a large number that still thought there was no jurisdiction here, and they were right when they thought that way. and, of course, the senate rule 23, it's in black and white. they live by these rules, so certainly that was something they could hang their hat on too. to get to two-thirds, to beat the two-thirds and get the win in this, we had to really be strategic about what senators were going to be listening to what arguments. griff: michael, i think that the senate certainly reacted, and we were in that roller coaster over the witnesses. you were making the argument that you could have a hundred or more witnesses. and at one moment the senate laughed at you, they seemed to give you a hard time. i want to ask you what your impressions were as a philadelphia lawyer that came down here to argue this case,

what was that like for you? what is your reaction to the way that you were treated, and then a follow-up on that, how far you been -- how have you been treated as a result of dee fending the president? there are reports your house was graffitid. >> my home was attacked, i'd rather not go into that. to answer your question, my entire family, my business, my law firm are under siege right now. i don't really want to go into that though. what i'd really like to do is talk about the merits of the case. they didn't have a case. they shouldn't have brought this impeachment from the beginning. it really does stem from political hatred. and i really wish that this country would come into the middle. it's so polarized on the left and on the right, and what this nation and what these

politicians need to do is they need to come into the middle. what happened in the chamber this morning, you know, i could have very much misunderstood their laughter. some of the senators came up and said, no, you know, mike, we laughed because a that's exactly how -- you know, you're a lawyer. that's what happens. you want a witness, you drop a subpoena. you want information, you take a deposition. and when you say you're going to do it up in philadelphia, well, of course you are because that's the way it should be done. but i think, so i think most of them were probably laughing at just reality setting in that this is the way it would be done. but, you know, i'm in there, i'm boxing, and i don't like laughter so much. i may have taken it the wrong way. but, you know, we put -- can i had a team of lawyers and legal professionals, the staff in my

firm back up in philadelphia, the folks that came down here with me, super people. hearts of gold. none of us are political really in that way. and we had a constitutional duty to defend this case, to defend this client, and we did this case like absolutely every other case my firm handles, threw everything at it, every resource we had. we gave it to this case. you know, we put this defense together in eight days, and i'm proud of my team. i'm pleased with my team. i'm pleased with my team. and our team. and it's very difficult down here because it's so partisan, it's so political. the media was very unkind to us. i mean, all the -- i can't tell you how many names i was called in how many different papers or media outlets, and, you know,

i'm just a working guy and trying to do the best we can every day at the job that we're blessed to be able to do. gillian: michael, thanks for joining us and giving us a chance to talk to you. we always keep it fair and balanced here at fox news. i want to ask you for your reaction to one of the only, as far as i could tell watching this trial every hour, every day this week, new pieces of information we got which came from house managers. they laid out -- i think this came on wednesday -- >> it's interesting, it's interesting you say information because it was probably second and thirdhand information. what they needed to come into the senate chamber with was evidence, proof, facts, and they were devoid -- gillian: they did lay out the case on wednesday that when it comes to the events of january 6th, the pro-trump rally was originally scheduled for january

23rd. they laid out evidence that it was actually the trump team, it was the campaign working with the white house that decided to move it back to january 6th which is the day that we saw these unfortunate events, you know, the rampage on the capitol. what's your response to that piece of evidence? >> they didn't. they didn't lay out any competent evidence to show that at all. the evidence shows that this was a premeditated, preplanned attack on the capitol by extremists on both the left and the right. and i can't say enough -- myself as a citizen, a all of the american people, we want the middle. we want people to come together and start solving the problems of this nation. that's what has to happen. and so i think, and i'm hopeful that winning this impeachment trial today is going to help folks do that. griff: well, congratulations, counsel to the former president. let's go now to the house

managers at the press -- >> i want the thank the members of the house, and i want to thank the terrific members of the house impeachment manager team. trump stormed our house with the mob he incited, and is we defended our house. and he violated our constitution, and we defended the constitution, and they trashed our democracy, and we revived it. and we protected it. this was the most bipartisan presidential impeachment in the history of the united states, and we know that impeachment, for reasons that we could explore at some other time, often becomes partisan. but this was the most bipartisan presidential impeachment event in the history of the country. it was also the largest senate vote for a presidential

impeachment, 57-43. and, of course, the vote to impeach was 232-197 in the house. so we have a clear and convincing members of congress that the president actually incited violent insurrection against the union and against the congress. senator mitch mcconnell just went to the floor essentially to say that we made our case on the facts, that a he believed that donald trump was practically and morally responsible for inciting the events of january 6th. he described it as we did, as a disgraceful dereliction of duty, a desertion of his office, and he made a series of statements that we didn't even make saying that this was not over yet by a long shot, essentially, and that there was the path of criminal prosecution for the former president, the disgraced and now

twice-impeached former president. so the bottom line is that we convinced a big majority in the senate of our case. i'm very proud of the exceptional hard work of these managers who worked through the night, many nights over several weeks to make this case to the senate and to the i just want to say one word about the whole thing about witnesses, we were able to get treated as live under oath testimony, statement of our colleague, jaime herrera beutler. we were able to get a stipulation to that and get it into evidence today by asking for her as a witness. if you listen to mitch mcconnell and the republicans now

hurriedly explaining why they voted not to convict, all of them are hinging on a legal argument, jurisdictional or some other legal argument that could never be overcome by any number of witnesses. we could have had 5000 witnesses and which mcconnell would make the same speech because what he's asserting is the senate never has jurisdiction over a former president and for reasons i don't need to labor because a big part of the trial is about this, we reject that completely. it totally at odds with our history. the text of the constitution, the original intent of the constitution, the original understanding of the constitution, set its own presidents but in any event, no number of witnesses demonstrating that donald trump continued to incite insurrectionist even after the invasion of the capital would convince them they wouldn't be

convinced, they were hinging on matter of law which we thought we settled on tuesday when the senate elected to exercise jurisdiction and reject that jurisdictional constitutional argument. it is what it is. mitch mcconnell clearly feels donald trump remains a huge problem for the republican party even if he's been disgraced in the eyes of the country and that's not my jurisdiction and i don't have anything to say about that. they will have to deal with the political dynamics within their own party. we did get donald trump to admit he's a former president now, so that is good news. he's not asserting somehow he's still president. they are recognizing at least in the de facto sense, the legitimacy of his presidential election, which of course

president biden one by more than 7 million votes and a margin of 3600 -- 306 -- 332 in the electoral college. i will post my remarks and questions are open for any of us and i'm going to share the podium with my distinguished colleagues. [inaudible] >> seven -- [inaudible] if i could guess, -- [inaudible] >> somebody else want to take a shot, i thought i addressed that. >> we heard from the minority leader, mitch mcconnell that we have proven this. he said specifically the house managers have proven the facts of the case. before we started yesterday, we

knew when we rested, we rested with overwhelming evidence with the facts of this case. these jurors were also witnesses to the crimes. they knew specifically what was happening. then we found additional information about herrera beutler. which we, yesterday evening, we decided we were going to go after and we got it we got that information. further amplifying what we had already proven in court. there's no other additional witnesses that we were training to us but not there on the screen. body cameras of the capital police officers, how much more would that have given to them than the actual seeing the day of the insurrection? individuals others would like to call like the president, who

invited is a defendant and does not have to testify. other individuals who may have been there with the president are not witness to us and would require subpoenas and months of litigation. they are still litigating in impeachment one year later. so we believe we have shown this president is a disgrace to our country. mitch mcconnell did himself said that. these senators decided to hang their hat jurisdictional grounds not based in evidence, which on it based on the facts and they will have to be judged for that. we have done our duty to the american people. [inaudible] >> let me traduce speaker pelosi. >> it was not my intention to come to the availability, as

tempting as it would be to sing the praises of our house managers. on behalf not only of the house of representatives on behalf of the american people. i have to say personally on behalf of my grandchildren and great hope and inspiration from each and every one of you, we could not be prouder of your patriotic presentation, clarity in which you present it and again, the inspiration you have been to so many people. i thank you for that. when i see all of them, it reminds me when we recruit candidates to run for office or seen themselves recruiting, we always say well, i could be the president of my university or i could be the head of my hospital or this or that. i have to think about whether, we don't want anybody without options, that's why we are

looking to you to run because you have options. that shouldn't be a reason not to run. what we saw in the senate today was a group of republicans who apparently have no options because they were afraid to defend their job, respect the institution in which they serve. imagine it would be vandalized and in so many bad ways i won't even go into here and that they would not respect their institute, that's a president of the senate. mike pence, hang mike pence was the chant and they just dismissed back. why? maybe they can't get another job. what's so important about any one of us? what's so important about this political survival of any one of

us is more important than our constitution that we take an oath to protect and defend? why i came over was because i listened to mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell, who when this distinguished group of house managers were gathered january 15 to deliver the articles of impeachment could not, were told could not be received because mitch mcconnell had shut down the senate and was going to keep it shut down until the inauguration. for him to get out there and make this indictment against the president and then say but i can't vote for it because after him if he established, the fact that he established that it could not be delivered before

the inauguration. when you think about january 6, between january 6 -- 20th, you aren't talking about just under two weeks, a day under two weeks. the big lies to stop the steel, was the momentum for getting these people, they honestly believe, for whatever reason, maybe too much social media or whatever, watch social media, that movie. i was thinking that was true, the election was not legitimate, whatever the reason the president told. that's the sixth. a week later we impeach in the house. thank you for those of you who participated right away. raskin and ted lieu and david cicilline, they had it all

written up and ready to go. bipartisan, past the house and then two days later, ready with the case to take to the senate. we can't receive it. then receive it the next day so at the trial. for mitch mcconnell who created the situation where it could not have been heard before the 20th, or even begun before the 20th in the senate, to say all the things he said, oh my gosh about donald trump and how terrible he was and is and then say but, at times the the house chose to bring it over, no, we didn't choose. you chose not to receive it so that's important.

so again, it doesn't matter as jamie and others have told us, you can have the case after the person is out of office, elementary discussion. the senate rules and that way president on this so it wasn't that it mattered except it was not the reason he voted the way he did. it was the excuse he used. that's why it's important because it was an important speech, chuck schumer's speech was remarkable and laying it all out. i think he was inspired by all of you because you raised the level of all of this to such a place of patriotism and knowledge of our country, our history and what we owe our children. we always shea, honoring our founders, worthy of sacrifice of men and women in uniform, respecting aspirations of our

children. they did all of that. the distinguished manager said earlier on this presidential weekend, our sense of patriotism is stirred called upon in a stronger way. i want to thank them, thank you, stacy, thank you very much, joe neguse. thank you eric swalwell. thank you cicilline ted lieu, thank you very much manager on all of this. we couldn't be prouder. i've been hearing from my grandchildren who are very sad justice wasn't done. by 15 votes, the senate voted to convict good bipartisan

statement about what has happened. it would not have been accomplished without your brilliant presentation so thank you for that and i yield to the floor. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for your confidence. i was going to go next to scott. [inaudible] >> the thing that president trump was still -- >> if you're just joining us now, the senate voted 57 -- 43 to acquit former president trump of a single article of impeachment which was inciting and insurrection, seven republicans join all 50 democrats to convict falling well short of the 67 votes needed for conviction. let's go back to the floor and listen to speaker pelosi. >> i don't know whether it was for what, whatever it was it was

a disingenuous speech. i always want to be able to work with leadership of the other party. i turn to you as a strong republican party, very important. for him to try to have it every which way but we will be going forward to make sure this never happens again in terms of to investigate and evaluate what caused this both in terms of this motivation but also the terms of security we have to have before recognizing sweeney, elected officials to be. [inaudible] >> speaker pelosi -- [inaudible]

>> it let's everybody off the hook. all these cowardly senators who couldn't face up to what the president did and what was at stake for our country, are now going to have a chance, using stationary, you don't send their people for inciting insurrection to kill people. >> yes. [inaudible] wanting the contemporaneous notes, possibly leading to other depositions and already public statement and for the record, did you try to reach out to her at all and separately, did the white house indirectly or directly have involvement in the

decision? >> i mean, i don't want to cash tried this case as aggressively as we could on the law and facts. we did everything we could. we got from the president lawyers exactly what we wanted which was entering into the evidentiary record of the statement by our colleague, congresswoman beutler and we got that. i was able to read it before the entire country and it became part of the case. the important part of our case again, we could have had 500 witnesses and it would not have overcome the kinds of arguments being made by mitch mcconnell and other republicans who were hanging their hats on the claim that was somehow unconstitutional to try a former president or that a first amendment somehow gave him a right to insight violence insurrection against the union. they are going to have to live with those arguments that they made but we think we

overwhelmingly approved our case. mitch mcconnell's statement showed they knew we overwhelmingly approved our case and all that might have happened is we bargained for on our side, tend witnesses on our side and ten other side. the first person they wanted to bring up into cross examine nancy pelosi. they would have turned the whole thing into a circus and we conducted it legal seriousness and decorum and you saw the conduct of the lawyers on the other side and you know what donald trump's track record was. we would not allow them to turn into a farce. [inaudible] >> why did you --

[inaudible] >> the press conference we are going to continue to watch for that and bring it to you as it develops. let's now bring in the lead defense attorney, bruce castor is been arguing for the last five days. i want to congratulate you and maybe get your reactions in today's department. >> thank you very much. i doubt i will ever see anything like this again in my career. i am doing pretty good. >> jamie raskin and he is essentially saying they did indeed prove their case but you disagree? >> they failed miserably on all sorts of grounds, none of lease is the jurisdiction, the constitution is quite plain that once your out of office, that's the only active remedy on the impeachment article and then they were off on the law as it relates to first amendment and due process. they even blew it when they wrote the article of impeachment by failing to break it out into

counts so any one of those things was a loser for them but sort of the same i think sunk their ship, they not only manufactured evidence passed it off as true but also selectively cut and recut the president's statements such that they were out of context and put them all in the right context and found the correct piece of evidence that showed deceptiveness and disease on their part. where i come from, those things get you in trouble with the judge ethics board back home and the supreme court back home and also tends to ruin your credibility on everything else you say. >> this is jillian turner. i'm not sure if you could hear nancy pelosi a moment ago but she joined house managers over at the press conference, impromptu visit.

she said the republicans who voted to acquit president trump today voted as an act of cowardice. what is your response to that? >> it is appalling our high public officials speak that way about each other ever. the speaker of the house is supposed to be a revered person. the u.s. senator is supposed to be, and is a revered person. those comments have no place in a government that has to work together to get things done. i think the senators that voted as they did, did it because they are patriots and make the decision based on the constitution and law and not setting a precedent that every time the party in power want to cancel out some previous rival, get rid of them using the

constitutional cancel culture we saw here today, that's not something we want to do. before the clinton impeachment, there was not a single person alive who had been through a presidential impeachment before. now there have been three. this is a terrible, terrible diminishment of the importance and awesome power of impeachment that should be used extraordinarily rarely. >> bruce, i want you to reflect now, it's so soon but can you talk to us about how difficult this has been for you and your team? bruce: i was on high prosecutor for decades, so i have some experience with death threats and vandalism at my home and my wife and the police dealt with that at our house but the rest of the team don't have that sort of experience and it's been

unsettling. mr. vanderveen's house was vandalized last night while his house, his wife wasn't it. my house was subject of unrest and these people are lawyers and expect to do their job without having to fear for their personal safety. the country has reached the point where somebody needs a lawyer, if they are attacked, where will we be going forward when some money truly is in need of counsel and can't find one because they are afraid to defend the present what happed half the country thinks is this? >> after the acquittal vote was finalized, mitch mcconnell took to the senate floor, gave a somewhat shocking speech in which he said he voted to acquit but then also felt impeachment was not the right forum right

now for dealing with former president trump. he said he fully expects criminal justice system but in the future, pick up where the senators left off so i want to know from you, what are the odds you think that could happen? also, when you represent president trump in a criminal trial if charges are put forward sometime in the future. >> i am not privy enough to the details of any criminal investigation if there is one into the former president, if the former president asked me to defend him, i will do so and i don't know the majority knows the rest of the world doesn't know, i can certainly say he and his office were as courteous and considerate with us as possible, i consider mitch mcconnell to be a great man and i am proud of the fact that he represents us in the u.s. senate. my suspicion is that he hold the senate as a sacred place and is

particularly upset over what happened and he felt that an insurgency into the inner sanctum of american government needs to be addressed and expressed his wish that it does get addressed. >> bruce, i want to say, ask you about difficulties, no attorney, no american jurors put through what you and your team has been. the me ask you, sitting aside be treatment you got, is there a larger message? this experience and this trial sends to america as we try to unite the midst of a pandemic and other divisive issues going on in the country. >> there certainly is. one of the most significant reasons why the founders wrote the first amendment,

specifically in the causes related to free speech and free press is so there was robust extensive debate on public issues of importance but they certainly didn't expect people to resort to violence. they want people to get along outside of the political realm and inside the political realm make decisions for the country, the idea that compromises this. the fact that we are so polarized is making this nation into two nations. that absolutely must stop. >> which of the arguments you and your colleagues put forward over the last week do you think resonated the most with the republicans who voted to acquit president trump? do you think it was relying on

the argument that the trial was unconstitutional, was it the first amendment argument? i asked your colleague michael van der veen a few minutes ago, he said he thought it was a combination of all of those but you guys tailored these arguments with these specific senators. you have a take on that? bruce: yes. i've made a comment about that yesterday that i saved the last portion of the argument for myself because that's the legal analysis of whether the spoken words of president trump could constitute under any scenario incitement and i think senators wanted to know what the law was and how it is that the law was not proven as being violated by house managers. i think that technical legal scholarly review one the day for us but i also believe a lot of senators thought there was no

jurisdiction and i believe a lot of senators thought the house rushed to judgment and not provided due process of law and thought that presidents, like everyone else, want to be protected by the first amendment, right to free speech. >> on that, let me ask you because as the trial is going on, there have been a lot of lawyers, talking about well, this was an overcharge, maybe if it had been a lesser article of impeachment like dereliction of duty or something, there would have been a conviction, what is your reaction to statements like that? bruce: i don't believe there could have been a conviction under any circumstance because i don't believe it would ever reach two thirds of the senators they have jurisdiction over

somebody out of office since the constitution provides the only active penalty upon conviction for impeachment his removal from office since a person is no longer in office, the penalty cannot be carried out. the second part from holding office in the future, that can never be reached unless you accomplish the first course part and since he could not be removed from office, they never could have gotten anywhere so there's no set of circumstances under which the democrat managers house managers could have prevailed. this was an ill-conceived from the start, both from political standpoint to, a legal standpoint. all they did was waste people's time when they should have been figuring out how to bring covid relief to millions of americans suffering from businesses closing because of the inability to implied their trades.

>> i want your reaction to closing arguments from the other side, house manager jamie raskin earlier today began his remarks by saying, and this is a quote, this trial isn't about president trump, it's about us. who the senate is as about it. what you make of those comments? bruce: i think he was right but i think that he was wrong in the way he used that statement. certainly was about the senate and the constitution and it was about the senate, not abusing the power that the constitution gives it to remove people from office and try to correct to actively apply it to people already out of office so what the senate did today was vindicate the framers of the constitution, mr. raskin inadvertently highlighted that but not to the proposition he hoped it would advance.

>> we are going to let you go. thank you for taking time on this day. appreciate it. congrats again to you and your clients. we hope to talk to you again soon. bruce: thank you for having me. >> we are going to bring back in now congressional correspondent chad pergram to digest a little bit, these press conferences with now heard from the house managers and the defense team, what were your key takeaways? >> what i heard from nancy pelosi a couple of moments ago, she was asked a question by our colleague, jason she said that is not an issue here. you've heard for a couple of weeks now tim kaine, the democratic senator from virginia pushing a resolution here. it's pretty clear they would probably not get to two thirds and she said we center people in the house of representatives for misusing stationary. what she was referring to was in 2010 with mark democratic congressman, charlie wrangle

accused of misusing congressional resources and a host of other things among them, writing watters of congressional stationary so that is off the table for now so that's one of the most important things that came out of that. we had a 57 -- 43 vote for impeachment in the united states senate this afternoon. ten votes shy of 67 needed for conviction, seven republicans joining all 50 senate democrats to convict, lead impeachment manager raskin noting that this was the most bipartisan senate impeachment vote for president in history even though they failed to convict. one of the seven republican senators who voted to convict was richard burr from north carolina, also gop louisiana senator, bill gaskell and at least they finally got president trump to concede, he's now a former president. mr. tom's attorney, michael van der veen, this house has been attacked, his business under siege after representing and he

did not want to elaborate further. one of the most surprising moment this afternoon, mitch mcconnell tearing into the former president for pushing conspiracy theories about the election even though mcconnell voted to acquit and then house speaker nancy pelosi calling senate republicans who voted to appoint as mr. trump cowardly, that was the term she used. she accused them of standing behind the former president, the reason they fact president trump's quote maybe they can't get another job. ". pelosi got into a tangle with mcconnell and she says she did not send the articles of impeachment to the senate because she was told the senate would not receive and consider it under mcconnell's control. mcconnell's office indicating there was no way they could wrap up the senate trial while president trump was still in office. julian, griff. >> we expected the senate trial to be quick in both sides of the aisle wanted to get on with this

get back to business, covid relief and other things went with we saw was from nancy pelosi, that is hot rhetoric, is that going to change the environment on capitol hill, do they seem even more divided after this? chad: absolutely. there's no way to have impeachment without drawing through the building. things are already pretty divided. a lot of republicans, democrats who refuse to work with republicans those who voted against the certification of the electoral votes from arizona and pennsylvania. that is significant, there are some caucuses bipartisan issues some members unwilling to engage with the other side and pelosi said i always want to work with my colleagues on the other side of the building and other side of the aisle but she kind of let mitch mcconnell habit saying the speech was disingenuous. when you ask about getting other

things done, they probably going to do this covid relief bill if they can get it done in a partisan fashion. she's announced she's going to forge ahead and can keep everybody together, it is a narrow voting turning part, depending on the day, she can only lose five or six votes jewish she has to keep everybody together. the senate is using this special budgetary, budget reconciliation which shuts all filibuster. you don't need 60 votes to kill a filibuster, you just need 51 votes in the senate so maybe if they have a 50 -- 50 tide, they break the tie with vice president harris so even though they have talked about bipartisanship, it appears the next big legislative ticket on the table here, covid relief, is going to be done in a partisan fashion. jillian: one last question about a specific detail here democrats and were hogan's have been fighting about, nancy pelosi address it now in the house

managers press conference, for weeks republican's have been saying we got the boat out of the house to impeach president trump but then nancy pelosi sat on the articles of impeachment, she had to deliver it, deliver it to the senate and -- [inaudible] the deadline, we arrive at this argument with the trial is unconstitutional because president trump is already out of office so pelosi himself spoke out against that herself. she said i did not sit on the articles of impeachment, senate declined to accept it. chad: that is the back-and-forth here. she says one thing, mcconnell's office says another but mitch mcconnell was technically in charge for a period of time, they have not yet worked out and organizing resolution with the democrats and senate because it was 50 -- 50. that doesn't mean automatically you have the vice president on your side that you are now

majority. they had to work out the resolution. honestly, there's so much going on in january, the special election in georgia, inauguration, impeachment article on the floor and moving it to the senate tried to work out this organizing resolution to the senate to start, you still had until about a week and a half ago, republicans sharing committees in the senate, there's a lot going on and sorting that out parliamentarian, that's a real hard. it's going to be he said and she said. >> capitol hill specialty. griff: great job, chad. great job. we are still waiting to hear from the biden administration for the first time since the senate voted to acquit president trump. live at the white house, good evening, mark corporate good evening. we are still waiting for the

official reaction from president biden and the administration over this news out of the senate. the president spending his weekend on the campaign, told to be stand by, something passed on to the press but we don't expect to hear from the president himself but you can imagine what it's been like for this administration ever since they came into office january 20. a lot of questions about what they would like to see happen with impeachment, the president will be asked questions repeatedly as he would hold events here at the white house and even stopped to talk about yesterday and he said he was anxious to see what republican senators would do. now we have the answer, we are simply waiting from the biden team reaction. we were curious about the back-and-forth potentially introducing witnesses, but it means for the administration as they get the $1.9 trillion covid relief bill through congress, there was a debate already, speculation on twitter whether or not this would impede that from happening and what it would look like. now with the trial wrapping up, the administration will keep its

focus on this covid bill among other issues and they would likely say that's what the focus has been this whole time. the administration would say they feel this is the senate's role, this is the response ability for them. president biden making it clear for so many years, how the process works and want things to play out on capitol hill. as for washington, i'd imagine it would eventually would get back to work, not only with the covid bill but with schools reopening, cdc guidelines coming out yesterday, administration making it clear that's what they want to focus on as well and so many other legislative priorities that will come up on the headlines here, minimum wage getting race, whether or not the u.s. and iran will eventually engage with each other again to get another nuclear deal, these are all topics happening behind the scenes but not getting covered because of what's happening on capitol hill with impeachment now that that is over, i will be curious to see

if that shifts the focus back to the administration first 100 days or back down to south florida. griff: i'm curious, i want to ask you, could you give us a sense for the mood at the white house, have you talked to the staff? reporter: there were a few staffers, i had the chance to speak with one and waiting to see what today would bring just like the rest of us waiting to see how the senate would react with the president being at kat david, also a saturday, not a huge stack here. when we do see it come out, it would be twitter or through the white house press, i keep checking my phone to see if we can get that. now that we have heard from speaker pelosi and schumer, we will have attention paid to vice president harris and biden. we will be interested to hear vice president harris' reaction.

as for the administration itself, they did try to hammer that home over the last few weeks, they were focused on the first 100 days, the biden agenda, not necessarily going to spend hours and hours dissecting what was happening with impeachment but it was the talk of the town, as is everything around here. griff: mark meredith on a valentines day decorated lawn . reporter: i have a feeling really is not going to happen here in washington anytime soon. griff: thank you. if you're just joining us, senate voting to acquit president trump of a single article of impeachment, but was 57 -- 43 falling short of the 67 votes needed to convict. we'll take a short break. stick with us. ♪♪

if you're just joining us, fox news alert, historic day in the

senate voting 2743 -- two acquit president donald j trump. fox news contributor, judith miller, a fellow at the manhattan institute for policy research police are prize-winning journalist and author, thank you for being here on this historic saturday afternoon. i want to start with you, we talked earlier, i want your reaction to what has transpired. >> i think what struck me the most today, because this was the outcome, he was not going to be convicted, donald trump of the charges but what struck me was the fury, passion behind mitch mcconnell's indictment to the former president. this is stronger in many respects any of the democratic prosecutors. he talked about trump's reckless

hyperbole, he said it was one person is responsible for what happened, he called him practically and morally responsible, anyone listening to what mitch mcconnell said understood what was involved here, which mcconnell decision not to press his colleagues to go forward conviction with politics. for mitch mcconnell, this was all about politics but he still felt he had to justify that position and i was very struck by the passion behind his remarks. jillian: i want to ask a legal argument question here, we had michael van der veen on a few moments ago earlier today, his final battle argument he said he spoke to the senators almost like they were trial jury and said look, all the video you've seen throughout this trial, all the commotion injected into this

from numbers talking about the horrific experiences january 26, he got to discount all of that. what we are focused on, it's irrelevant to president trump's innocence because we are charging him with incitement to insurrection, all this stuff came after the fact, it has nothing to do with whether however terrible the attacks were, it's nothing to do with whether or not president trump incited that attack, what did you think about that strategy? >> you look at any legal argument, you have to look at the legal part and performance part. my understanding is that former president trump liked this guy the guy who spoke today -- vanderveen. he's a philadelphia lawyer with a good reputation as a feisty trial lawyer as far as i can tell so performance wise, he gave the kind of performance

president trump would like and i thought again, on the theatrical part of it, it was good. the legal part was ridiculous. other than jurisdictional constitutional argument, which is the very fair point, the legal arguments were preposterous. in particular, the argument that this is protected speech under the first amendment. the first amendment rights have no place in an impeachment trial. under that analysis, the analysis he gave, trump could have burned a flag in front of congress, he could have used the n word like the defendants in brandenburg versus ohio, he could do all kinds of things he let somebody do who is on trial a regular court system but you can't do if you're president of the united states. first amendment has no place as a legal argument, other than the constitutional one, were a complete joke. but he did do well on the

performance level. jillian: thank you for joining us this hour. got to leave it there but we will talk to you both again. after the senate has voted to acquit former president trump, we will get reaction from the house side with republican congressman andrew joining us right after the break. ♪♪ ♪♪

moments ago, senate acquitted former president trump and his second impeachment trial new york republican congressman -- [inaudible] [inaudible] what is your response to the events of today? >> i don't think anybody in washington is surprised. this is the way it has been going with a very partisan impeachment in the house, they rushed it through. there were no hearings, no investigations. it was voted on two days after the articles were introduced and it's in the senate now and looks like a partisan there as it was in the house. people are just looking forward to having it done with and to move on. >> the speaker of the house

nancy pelosi going to the house managers press conference earlier. she had strong words for those who voted to acquit. your sense, as we look ahead to what you will do next, of course covid relief being first up, what is your sense of the environment on capitol hill as you try to work together? >> i think majority of my colleagues including myself are looking forward to move ahead as this impeachment but as we saw the past week the covid relief package, democrats would not accept any republican amendment in any midi. this bill is going to be a partisan the. i'd be very surprised if any republican, if there are just a handful that vote to support it, it's as partisan as can be that's what we are looking at right now. it doesn't look like any negotiation on the other side from the speaker's office.

i think it's her way or the highway what she is doing right now. jillian: what you make of the fact that president trump was acquitted but he did have the most bipartisan vote for impeachment of any president in over 100 years, do you feel like that puts a dent in the victory? >> i think what happened, and every person whether in the house for impeachment or in the senate for conviction, it was a vote of conscience. i voted to certify the election but voted against impeachment. i didn't think the process was right, i think it was a terrible precedent. i think the senators who voted to convict, they were the ones who heard testimony. they have to back up there decision. i do think it is time to move ahead we have to get kids back to school.

it's behind us now. griff: about 20 seconds we got, we want to ask you as you move ahead, is the gop going to be more divided or united after the vote? >> the house is definitely working toward adjudication. i think they are going to do the same. democrats will keep doing things to unify. more orders are going to bring us closer together. jillian: thanks so much for your time. we got to leave it there. talk to you soon. griff: that does it for us. fifty-seven -- 43. acquitting donald j trump. thank you very much. ♪♪ ♪♪

(deborah) i was hesitant to get the hearing aids because of my short hair, but nobody even sees them. (vo) discover the exclusive, new miracle-earmini- a nearly invisible hearing aid from the brand leader in hearing aids. new miracle-earmini. so small and comfortable that no one will see them, but you'll notice the difference. start the year with better hearing and big savings. call miracle-ear today.

>> for president trump second impeachment trial lawmakers voting to aqait former president after last mien fight over witnesses through proceedings into chaos. good evening everyone i'm trace gallagher in for jon scott and this is a special two hour edition of the "fox report." >> judges at the respond of donldz john trump former president the united states is not guilty. >> that's what it sounded like a little more than two hours ago when senate voted to acquit former president trump of inciting capitol riot final vote 57-43.